Which book is the Last written?

I suspect it was the Gospel of John, sometime in the mid 90s.

 

There is also another option--that ALL the NT books were written before 70 AD. And so one does not have to place Jude after Revelation, or after 70 AD.

See John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament.

(If I have understood the background to your question here): one need not connect an early date for Revelation (and the other 26 NT books) with a full preterism that insists that EVERYTHING in Rev has already happened. THere are plenty of orthodox preterists (one might call them partial preterists) that are post-millenial that would still see room for a Second Coming. For a very good articulation of this question, I'd look up Greg Bahnsen's works on eschatology (I heard him in a 3-or 4-part cassette series a loooong time ago), to see how you can combine preterism without denying a bodily return of Jesus, yet to come.

 

Hello Paul, welcome to the BB. I believe there are several PPs (I being one of them) on board that would conform with what you've just stated.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown favor the earlier date for the writing of Revelation and have this to say about it (they provide possible allusions to the book in other books of the NT):

From JFB commentary: "...The following arguments favor an earlier date, namely, under Nero: (1) Eusebius [Demonstration of the Gospel] unites in the same sentence John's banishment with the stoning of James and the beheading of Paul, which were under Nero. (2) Clement of Alexandria's'S story of the robber reclaimed by John, after he had pursued, and with difficulty overtaken him, accords better with John then being a younger man than under Domitian, when he was one hundred years old. Arethas, in the sixth century, applies the sixth seal to the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), adding that the Apocalypse was written before that event. So the Syriac version states he was banished by Nero the Cæsar. Laodicea was overthrown by an earthquake (A.D. 60) but was immediately rebuilt, so that its being called "rich and increased with goods" is not incompatible with this book having been written under the Neronian persecution (A.D. 64). But the possible allusions to it in Heb 10:37; compare Re 1:4, 8; 4:8; 22:12; Heb 11:10; compare Re 21:14; Heb 12:22, 23; compare Re 14:1; Heb 8:1, 2; compare Re 11:19; 15:5; 21:3; Heb 4:12; compare Re 1:16; 2:12, 16; 19:13, 15; Heb 4:9; compare Re 20:1-15; also 1Pe 1:7, 13; 4:13, with Re 1:1; 1Pe 2:9 with Re 5:10; 2Ti 4:8, with Re 2:26, 27; 3:21; 11:18; Eph 6:12, with Re 12:7-12; Php 4:3, with Re 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15; Col 1:18, with Re 1:5; 1Co 15:52, with Re 10:7; 11:15-18, make a date before the destruction of Laodicea possible. Cerinthus is stated to have died before John; as then he borrowed much in his Pseudo-Apocalypse from John's, it is likely the latter was at an earlier date than Domitian's reign. See Tilloch's Introduction to Apocalypse. But the Pauline benediction (Re 1:4) implies it was written after Paul's death under Nero.”

 

The big point that Robinson made, apart from individual characteristics of each NT book, was the complete and utter lack of a specific reference to the fall of the Temple in 70 AD, which, when considering the central role the Temple had in Judaism and Palestine, would be rather strange, especially when some of the books were written to (believing) Jews. Granted its an argument from silence, but under these circumstances, a pretty strong one.

 

In fact, if someone is interested in a free ebook (PDF as well as HTML) on an early date for Revelation, you can see it here:

http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/2206_47e.htm

It is by Kenneth Gentry, entitled Before Jerusalem Fell.

 

I agree, it IS a strong argument from silence. I found Robinson's book here:

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1976_robinson_redating-testament.html

Thanks for that link to Gentry's book, I'd heard of it, never read it, now have it on file to reference when needed.

 

Scholars believe the Revelation to be written between 81-96 a.d. not prior to 70 a.d.

 

About ONLY way to get earlier date is to use sources that are not seen as being as reliable as commonly referred to by "experts", and those that fit into certail theological positions!

 

Most scientists once believed the earth was at the center of the universe

Some scholars do but not all of them. It proves nothing that most at the current moment in time believe anyone thing. Search for the best answer not the most scholars.

Most scientists once believed the earth was at the center of the universe.

Needless to say you look foolish to hold on to that belief in the face of evidence to the contrary.

I think the best evidence tells us all the books were written prior to 70 AD.

 

I look foolish? Then you equate those scholars to those who believed the earth to be the center of the universe, in other words, another slam and personal attack.

I hold to the 95-96 a.d. writing in spite of your personal attack.

Bless you my friend.

 

Victomology in practice

There is no personal attack here. You choose to make yourself a victim. Sad if you ask me. If you spend your time reading the scripture with as fervor as you apparently seek victim status it might change your view of some things.

Peace brother.

 

There is no personal attack here? :laugh: You call a brother foolish, yet that isn't a personal attack. Yeah OK.

I'm no victim, just a Christian accepting your little tirade and onslaught upon my character and belief. What you call me doesn't fit me personally and is more of a commentary on your walk and person. That's what is sad here.

Even more personal attacks from you. You're caustic and inflamed, yet present yourself as in the know and spiritual. Congrats! :thumbsup:

 

Really clinging tight to the victim card aren't we

Foolish was showing how it looks to claim the earth is the center of the universe--now if you want to claim the earth is the center of the universe then yes I'll gladly apply that to you as well.

Otherwise you are just proving my point by making yourself out to be a victim and getting yourself all worked up into a heart seizure over nothing.

If you get so easily frustrated over BB postings maybe you should consider other uses of your time that don't give you high blood pressure and heart failure.

But then some people enjoy victim hood so maybe at some level you are enjoying it. Whatever.

Peace brother.

 

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh: :laugh: :thumbsup:

Friend, it looks as if your religion has embittered you. :smilewinkgrin:

You use the center of earth issue as an indirect attack to call those who don't espouse c. 70 A.D. as also being themselves fools.

I mean, why else would you say it? Be big enough to own up to your own implications.

 

This is not a very reliable quote. It seems to be an opinion based on sketchy evidence. He admits the evidence points the other way. He says at the very beginning of this very article (the part you didn't quote) :

 

Look at me i'm a victim, i'm a victim!!!!

LOL, I think any honest reading of the original post is plain enough for 99.94% of people to correctly interpret it.

I'll give you some new fodder to work with though. You are a post twister. Maybe its just a DNA thing that futurists twist scripture all the time to make it conform to their view and now you are taking it to the next level and twisting BB posts to suit your desired view of victim hood.

Enjoy it brother--work the victim thing for all it's worth.

I salute your victim status.

 

I knew you weren't big enough to own up to your own implications. Let's see, you compare my beliefs with center of universe theory, then label it all "foolish" yet later you tuck tail and can't own up about your own implications and call it twisting? Congrats! :thumbsup:

Any honest person can see what you've implied.

Yep, I'm what you call a futurist, and what you've implied as being a fool for being so.

And I remain no victim, that's a figment of your imagination. Just a believer that doesn't share your beliefs, so you need to go on the attack, as is the trait of most preterists towards others who don't believe their views. A sad religion really.

 

The early dating of the Book of Revelation falls into the category of those liberals who believe deutero-Isaiah theory, the JEDP theory, the late date theory of Daniel, etc. In other words they are liberals trying to undermine the inspiration of the Bible, its authority, deny its prophecies, deny the supernatural acts of the Bible, etc.

I have put much study into this book, and have taught through the entire book, verse by verse. I have never encountered one commentary, Bible Dictionary, or Bible Encyclopedia that gives the Book of Revelation an early date of 70 A.D.

John himself states:
I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. (Revelation 1:9)

He was in Patmos, exiled there for the sake of the Word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ. The only person who had the authority to do that was Domitian for he was the emperor at that time (96-98 A.D.). This excludes Nero, and all who were before Domitian. The early fathers agree to this. All evidence points to this. This one fact in itself defeats the Preterist view. And it is a fact. It is also factual that all of John's writings: his Gospel, all three of his epistles were written in the 90's. You have yet to deal with them.

Here is the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) on the Introduction to the Gospel of John: